JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present Revision Application under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C., the applicants challenge the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No.4100 of 2018, whereby, under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘the Act’), learned JMFC granted several reliefs under sections 19(f) and 22 of the Act in an application under section 12 of the Act. Relief granted by the learned JMFC is in tune of Rs.2000/- under section 19(f) of the Act towards rent in-lieu of accommodation and further granted Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance to wife and did not decide to grant relief to minor child as minor child was getting Rs.3000/- from the order of learned Family Court but directed to pay educational expenses of minor son and in addition thereto, also ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation under section 22 of the Act. The applicant – husband challenged the said order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara by filing Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2022. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 28.11.2023 dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and order delivered by the learned JMFC. Being aggrieved by both the judgment and orders, the applicant – husband has filed present Revision Application. 2. Facts of the case are as under :- 2.1 The respondent herein-original applicant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4100 of 2018 under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act against the appellants herein and one Jashodaben Jayantilal Prajapati (who died pending the proceedings), inter alia, contending that her marriage was solemnized with appellant No.1 herein on 27.05.2005 and appellant Nos. 2 & 3 happen to be her father-inlaw & brother-in- law respectively and deceased Jashodaben happened to be her mother-in-law (original respondent No.3). Out of said wedlock, one son namely, Jainish is born, who presently stays with the respondent herein. The respondent was staying in joint family with the appellants and after sometime of the marriage, the appellants started mental and physical cruelty to the respondent and appellant No.1 at the instigation of other appellants was taunting her by saying that she has not brought cash amount and ornaments as demanded. The appellants also used to abuse the respondent and demand Rs.5,00,000/-. The respondent was asked to bring all educational expenses of the son from her paternal home. The appellants were continuously harassing the respondent. The appellants also used to abuse the respondent and demand Rs.5,00,000/-. The respondent was asked to bring all educational expenses of the son from her paternal home. The appellants were continuously harassing the respondent. Appellant No.1 was forced to get remarry by other appellants and thereby torturing her physically and mentally. The appellants tortured the respondent for giving divorce to appellant No.1. The appellants were restraining the respondent from visiting her parents and not giving adequate food as well as restraining her movements. However, in order to see that her marriage life and her son's future are not spoiled, the respondent used to bear the torture. On 15.07.2016, the appellants quarreled with the respondent and drove her out with her minor son with worn clothes. Initially, the respondent stayed with her parents for sometime and now she resides in a rented premises with her son. Though the respondent tried to settle the dispute and showed willingness to go with the appellants, the appellants did not show any readiness. Appellant No.1 does work on lathe machine and earns Rs.30,000/- per month whereas appellant No.2 also works on lathe machine and earns Rs.70,000/- per month. Appellant No.1 has no responsibility except the respondent and her minor son. On the above factual background, the respondent prayed for reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Act as well as return of Stridhan before the learned trial Court. 3. Heard learned advocate for the applicants. Learned advocate for the applicants would submit that learned Court below has committed serious error in believing that domestic relationship exists between the parties and also domestic violation. He would further submit that learned Court below has not addressed this issue, more particularly, in view of the admitted fact that wife had left matrimonial home in the year 2016 without any reason and since then, there was no domestic relationship between the husband and wife. Yet in the application filed in the year 2018 under the Act, learned JMFC believed existence of domestic relationship. There is clear flaws in the impugned orders. It is also submitted that wife has obtained order from the Court below by suppressing material fact. She was doing job. This aspect has been suppressed by the wife in the petition. Referring to Annexure G, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that photographs indicate that wife is sitting in jewellery shop and earning. It is also submitted that wife has obtained order from the Court below by suppressing material fact. She was doing job. This aspect has been suppressed by the wife in the petition. Referring to Annexure G, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that photographs indicate that wife is sitting in jewellery shop and earning. It is submitted that this aspect is suppressed by wife before the Court below and same is not considered by the learned Court below. It is submitted that wife has purchased immovable property and she is residing there. This fact is also suppressed by wife and learned Trial Court has totally overlooked this aspect and therefore, wife is not entitled to get any amount of rent for accommodation as she has her own accommodation. Therefore, it is submitted that orders passed by learned Court below are erroneous. It is also submitted that none of the provisions of the Act permits the Court below to pass order for educational expenses of minor children, more particularly, in absence of son is not party petitioner in the proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that impugned orders sans merits and present Revision Application deserves consideration. 4. Before addressing the merits canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicants, it is incumbent to refer section 397 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under :- “397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation. - All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398. Explanation. - All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.” 5. Revisional jurisdiction of the Court is very limited. This Court may call for and examine the record of the proceedings before inferior Court for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed. 6. The object of section 397 of Cr.P.C. is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law committed by the learned Trial Court (See : Amit Kapoor v/s. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 ]. To be noted that revision is procedural facility afforded to the party to check out that whether patent defect or error jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Trial Court. It is discretion of the Court. Scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited, thin and does not warrant detail discussion on merits and de-merits of the case. 7. This Court in the case of Bhikhabhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana v/s. State of Gujarat [2001 Cr.L.J. 4457] has held following :- “Again it is well settled that re-appreciation of the evidence in Criminal Revision is ordinarily not permitted unless very strong case is made out and it is shown that finding recorded are perverse i.e. totally against the evidence on record. That re-appreciation of evidence cannot be done simply because the Court thinks that the lower Court has taken an erroneous view in recording a finding. This can be gathered from the case of Ramaben Patel v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 (2) GLR 1530 . Even in the case of Kantilal Chavda v/s. Nanubhai Chavda reported in 1992 (2) GLR 1520 , it has been observed at length that revisional powers are not appellate powers. This can be gathered from the case of Ramaben Patel v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 (2) GLR 1530 . Even in the case of Kantilal Chavda v/s. Nanubhai Chavda reported in 1992 (2) GLR 1520 , it has been observed at length that revisional powers are not appellate powers. Such powers can be exercised for giving justice and not for injustice, even if the order sought to be revised is not in conformity with law.” 8. Thus, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in revision, until strong prima facie case is made out. (See State of Maharashtra v/s. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand (2004) 7 SCC 659 ]. 9. Keeping in mind above aspects, if we go through the impugned orders, more particularly, judgment delivered by the learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal, it is noted that Revisionist has not produced any evidence except filing written statement. The applicant has filed various documentary evidence (see para 10.1 of the judgment of learned Appellate Court). It was argued that there was no domestic relationship exist between the parties but as wife has left matrimonial house in the year 2016, but the argument is misplaced in view of section 2(f) of the Act . Another argument was canvassed that learned Trial Court has committed serious error in granting educational expenses. This argument is misplaced in view of section 20(d) of the Act, whereby children are entitled to get maintenance even when he is not joined as party. Phraseography of section 20 of the Act is sufficient to answer the argument that son is not entitled to get educational expenses. Another argument was canvassed that wife has suppressed material fact. This submission is canvassed for the first time in the Revision. The Court in limited jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate in this regard when evidence is not produced before the learned Trial Court. It is argued that wife is having immovable property and residing there. This contention also cannot be accepted. The property is joint property, merely because wife has some property in her name, it cannot deny her right to get rent for accommodation. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has addressed all these issues in depth. It is argued that wife is having immovable property and residing there. This contention also cannot be accepted. The property is joint property, merely because wife has some property in her name, it cannot deny her right to get rent for accommodation. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has addressed all these issues in depth. Relevant para which can be seen discussing all the aspects are in para 10.1, 11.1, 11.2, 12., 12.1, 13., 13.1 and 13.2 of the Appellate Court order, which reads as under :- “10.1 Records & Proceedings of the learned trial Court is placed before this Court. A perusal of the record of the learned trial Court shows that it contains application at Exhibit 1, Domestic Incident Report, reply of the appellants herein, affidavit in evidence of the respondent herein. It also contains documentary evidences such as, marriage photographs, ornament bills, fees receipts, rent agreement etc., produced by the respondent herein as well as the written arguments of both the sides. Except this, the record of the learned trial Court does not contain any other evidence or material. 11. Now, as regards the allegation of the domestic violence caused by the appellants, if the case of the respondent is seen, the respondent has clearly averred in the application that after her marriage in 2005, she has been continuously mentally and physically harassed by the appellants on the grounds of dowry, house chores, second marriage of appellant No.1 etc. and the appellants used to taunt her off and on. 11.1 The respondent herein has reiterated the averments made in the application in her affidavit in evidence (Exhibit 14). Now, if the cross-examination of the respondent is seen, the statements made by the respondent regarding domestic violence incidents on oath have not at all been challenged by the appellants herein. In the cross- examination, the respondent has admitted the fact of her marriage but denied the suggestion that she left the house of the appellants on her own on 15.07.2016 and clarified that the appellants had driven her out. The respondent has also denied the suggestion that the appellants used to bear all the expenses of minor Jainish till she resided with the appellants. She has also admitted that her son got the maintenance as per order passed in maintenance proceedings. Except this, there is no cross-examination. The respondent has also denied the suggestion that the appellants used to bear all the expenses of minor Jainish till she resided with the appellants. She has also admitted that her son got the maintenance as per order passed in maintenance proceedings. Except this, there is no cross-examination. 11.2 It can, thus, be said that the evidence given by the respondent regarding domestic violence by the appellants has gone unchallenged and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the case of the respondent regarding the domestic violence can be believed. 11.3 Having gone through the evidence adduced by the applicant-respondent herein, it can be said that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in recording the finding on the aspect of the domestic violence. 12. So far as the income of the appellant No.1 herein is concerned, the respondent herein has clearly stated in her application as well as affidavit in evidence that her husband earns Rs.30,000/- per month by working on lathe machine and appellant No.2 is also earning Rs.70,000/- per month. It is also stated and deposed on oath by the respondent that the appellant No.1 has no other responsibility except the applicant and her minor son. 12.1 The evidence regarding the income of the appellant No.1 has also gone unchallenged. Nothing could be brought on record by the appellants to prove their income. In fact, there is no denial taken on behalf of appellant No.1 during the cross examination of the respondent regarding his income. Appellant No.1 has also not stated anything regarding his income in his reply. Thus, in absence of the evidence adduced by the appellants and statement made by the respondent on oath regarding income of appellant No.1, which has remained unchallenged, this Court is of the view that the evidence of the respondent can be accepted. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned judgment also makes it clear that the learned trial Court has also discussed the aspect of income of appellant No.1 on the basis of evidence on record and, therefore, no fault can be found with the said finding. 13. The learned advocate for the appellants has argued that the learned trial Court has committed an error in granting the educational expenses to the minor inasmuch as the minor has not been joined as party. 13. The learned advocate for the appellants has argued that the learned trial Court has committed an error in granting the educational expenses to the minor inasmuch as the minor has not been joined as party. Extending this argument further, he has also submitted that there is no provision in the Act to award educational expenses. 13.1 In order to answer this argument, if the provision of Section 20 of the Act is seen, it provides that while disposing of an application under Section 12 of the Act, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include medical expenses, the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It also provides that the monetary relief granted under this Section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable as well as consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. Thus, the provision of Section 20 of the Act clearly provides that a Court of Magistrate entertaining the application under Section 12 of the Act has power to grant monetary relief to the aggrieved person as well as her children and the monetary relief so given should be adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. Thus, the provision of Section 20 of the Act is clear. 13.2 In view of this provision, this Court is of the view that merely because the minor is not made a party to the proceedings, it cannot be said that monetary relief cannot be awarded in his favour more particularly when it has come on record that the minor is staying with the aggrieved person i.e. his mother. Moreover, the learned trial Court has also discussed this aspect in the impugned judgment. Hence, this argument is rejected.” 10. I find no illegality in the concurrent findings of the Court below. Reference can be made to judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Johar v/s. Mangal Prasad [ 2008 (3) SCC 423 ]. In para 19, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “19. Hence, this argument is rejected.” 10. I find no illegality in the concurrent findings of the Court below. Reference can be made to judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Johar v/s. Mangal Prasad [ 2008 (3) SCC 423 ]. In para 19, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “19. The approach of the High Court to the entire case cannot be appreciated. The High Court should have kept in mind that while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it exercises a limited power. Its jurisdiction to entertain a revision application, although is not barred, but severally restricted, particularly when it arises from a judgment of acquittal.” 11. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned orders and this Court does not find any reason to interfere wit the impugned orders in limited jurisdiction. The Revision Application is dismissed at admission stage.